VASHISHTA NARAIN KARWARIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by detention of petitioner under National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) his son has approached this Court for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus and quashing the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad as the incident which led to arrest and detention of petitioner was not only concocted but it did not amount to endangering public order within meaning of sub section (2) of section 3 of the Act, therefore, the occasion to exercise the power was non-est. Political rivalry and official antagonism leading to petitioner's arrest and detention procedural irregularity, casual approach in dealing with his representation, undue and explained delay in its disposal non-application of mind by authorities, failure to forward relevant material by the District Magistrate to State Government, vagueness in the order, omission to forward the representation to Central Government have also been pressed as vitiating the detention and violating the constitutional protection of liberty under Article 22(3) of Constitution of India.

(2.) On 21st June the petitioner was arrested at 5.30 p.m. for committing offence under-section 153 of I.P.C. from crossing of - Dhoomangaj. Immediately thereafter telegrams etc, were sent on his behalf complaining of unwarranted arrest. At 8.00 P.M. a written representation on his behalf was presented to the District Magistrate through half a dozen persons including an Ex. M.P. It was received at 8.45 p.m. On next day that is 22nd Jun. 1986 copy of F.I.R., general diary etc, were received by the District Magistrate. He is stated to have examined the same, considered petitioners activity and involvement and was satisfied that petitioner's coming out of jail was likely to act in a manner prejudiced to maintenance of public order, therefore, he passed the order detaining petitioner under the Act. The grounds of detention were communicated to petitioner on 23rd June, 1985 to enable him to make representation against it. On same day copy of the order together with grounds of detention along-with report of District Magistrate were sent to State Government, which received it on 24th June and approved it on 28th June, 1986. It also informed Central Government of its approval on 30th June, 1986. The petitioners representation dated 10th July, 1986 against detention was sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad on the same day to the Government which was received by the Home Secretary on fifth July, 1986. It is explained that 12th and 13 July, 1986 being second Saturday and Sunday were holidays it was marked for confidential section on 14th July, 1986. Since the assistant in the confidential section, who was dealing with the file of petitioner, left for Allahabad for filing counter affidavit on 15th July, 1986, the radiogram was sent by him, on return on 17th July to the District Magistrate, Allahabad for his comments, copies of petitioners representation were also sent to the Advisory Board on 21st July, 1986 as 20th July was Sunday. The comments of District Magistrate and copy of representation of petitioner were received on 22nd July, 1986 which was forwarded by the Government to the Advisory Board. On the representation of petitioner which was received on 22nd July the office put up a detailed note on 23rd July, 1986 which after examination by Deputy Secretary, on 24th July, was placed before the Special Secretary, and Home Secretary who also examined the same on 25th July, 1986. It was ultimately rejected by State Government on 27th July, 1986.

(3.) The grounds of petitioners detention were that he along with his three or four companions had collected at the crossing of Doomanganj police station and was inciting that Hindus should not sit silently. They must organize themselves, burn mosques and shops of Mohammedans to teach them a lesson. Due to this the shops in the vicinity commenced closing and crowd started collecting resulting in spread of fear and danger among public and peace was disturbed. For this action case had already been registered but since there was already communal disturbance in one part of the city because of which the situation was tense which had been aggravated due to unwarranted provocation by petitioner and it had caused fear and public peace had been disturbed, the District Magistrate was satisfied that in order to protect public interest and to prevent any further activity it was necessary to detain petitioner.